Barna: Romney Got Lowest Level of Evangelical Support Since Dole
Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for president this year, received the lowest level of support among evangelicals of any Republican presidential candidate since Bob Dole in 1996, according to a report by Barna Group, a Christian polling organization.
Romney received the support of 81 percent of evangelicals, compared to 88 percent for John McCain in 2008, and 83 percent and 85 percent, respectively, for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Only Dole received a lower level of evangelical support at 74 percent in Barna's polling....
4more wrote: Here is another really hard one for you to try and figure. What is the difference between the tyrannical and military dictatorship in Paul's day - AND modern Democratic style government??????? (Take your time now)...
Dopey wrote: "it is well for us to remember that he who sat upon the throne of empire when Paul gave this instruction concerning obedience to the powers that be, was one of the vilest beasts in human form whoever occupied a throne-a sensuous, sensual brute ......" -- H. A. Ironside
I can't find in the Bible where Paul the Apostle encouraged others to help remove the powerful wicked political leaders that Paul encountered
Here is another really hard one for you to try and figure. What is the difference between the tyrannical and military dictatorship in Paul's day - AND modern Democratic style government??????? (Take your time now)
Romans 13 teaches that GOD providentially provides our style of Government as well as the administration and management provided. That means the American people are more guilty of putting Obama/Democrats and their political provisions than Paul and his compatriots were.
ps. Voting is the methodology you seek.
Alternatively you could always preach to politicians and convert them!!
Part of response from missionary Paul Young on the Obama victory "...When Habakkuk heard that the evil Chaldeans would invade, his stomach trembled, and his lips quivered. He had to just wait and endure the coming disaster. He couldn’t understand how a holy God could allow such a thing! God told him that He was the one putting the Chaldeans in charge (Hab. 1:6)! God’s people needed to be judged, and God used a wicked ruler to correct them. God often uses evil rulers and the suffering they bring to correct a nation. He did so many times in the book of Judges. So God ordained the Chaldeans to rule Israel, but is every ruler put there by God? Yes. “There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1). He sets over the nations the basest of men (Dan. 4:17). About 64 ago the Communists took over China—one of the worst things to ever happen in the history of the world. Millions were killed, and hundreds of millions suffered the disastrous economic policies and virtual slavery. But the church was purified, the Communists discredited themselves, and in the next few decades more people came to the Lord than any time in history. Estimates range from 75 million believers and more. Before the revolution there were less than a million..."
Mike wrote: Key word in Ironside's paragraph: "permitted"
I agree
Mike: "The Bible doesn't justify the wickedness of wicked rulers,"
reply: I agree:"There is none righteous, no, not one"
Mike: "and it does record with some frequency their removal by others,"
reply: I agree: The Bible reveals that God sometimes commanded during Old Testament times the Israelites to kill wicked rulers, also that some people took it upon themselves, thus violating God's "thou shalt not kill", to kill wicked rulers, which in both cases equaled the removal of wicked rulers.
But where in the Old Testament or New Testament does God reveal that saved born again Christians should with other saved Christians and unsaved people no less join together to try by any means to get rid of who they consider a wicked ruler?
Dopey wrote: --- 4more, I can't find in the Bible where Paul the Apostle encouraged others to help remove the powerful wicked political leaders that Paul encountered. ---
Key word in Ironside's paragraph: "permitted"
The Bible doesn't justify the wickedness of wicked rulers, and it does record with some frequency their removal by others, often with less kindly methods than ours, i.e. the voting of them out.
Four years of Obama and the Democrats should have enabled Christians to make a decision in seeking to help to remove him...
"it is well for us to remember that he who sat upon the throne of empire when Paul gave this instruction concerning obedience to the powers that be, was one of the vilest beasts in human form whoever occupied a throne-a sensuous, sensual brute, who ripped up the body of his own mother in order that he might see the womb that bore him-an evil, blatant egotist of most despicable character, whose cruelties and injustices beggar all description. And yet God in His providence permitted this demon-controlled wretch to wear the diadem of the greatest empire the world had yet known." -- H. A. Ironside from Ironside's Notes on Selected Books (one of the numerous free modules that integrate with the free Bible Software theWord.
4more, I can't find in the Bible where Paul the Apostle encouraged others to help remove the powerful wicked political leaders that Paul encountered.
Did God reveal to you that Romney should have been President? If so please share that revelation with the rest of us.
Prolife Profiles wrote: Mitt Romney gives pro-family speeches to conservatives but has an actual record of being aggressively pro-abortion both before and especially after his claimed "pro-life" conversion.
The reality is that there was and is only two parties (votes) which count towards the running of America.
Another reality is that voting ie participation in the democratic running of your country is addressed in the Bible.....
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good.
Four years of Obama and the Democrats should have enabled Christians to make a decision in seeking to help to remove him.
Lets hope eight years get the point through sufficiently by the next election. Although ethnicity may prove to be the next election winner too.
Angela Wittman wrote: 81% of the evangelical vote for Romney is still way too much, in my opinion. As long as evangelicals continue to support moderate anti-Christ candidates, this is exactly what the GOP leadership will continue to foist upon us. Time for a new party... How about the Christian Liberty Party?
I don't remember Romney running on a moderate anti-Christ platform. Maybe we were watching two different elections. You need to change things at grass root levels just like the tea party is doing. Agree with John Yurich, you are not going to replace either entrenched party. Besides, we are not voting for a Christian leader of a Christian society. We are voting for a secular leader of a secular society.
Angela Wittman wrote: 81% of the evangelical vote for Romney is still way too much, in my opinion. As long as evangelicals continue to support moderate anti-Christ candidates, this is exactly what the GOP leadership will continue to foist upon us. Time for a new party... How about the Christian Liberty Party?
Only someone who's mind is totally gone believes that a Third Party even if it is called the Christian Liberty Party even stands a remote chance of replacing the Republican Party as the second viable political party. That will never happen and you are living in a dream world if you believe otherwise.
Thanks for the previous posters here who have made an interesting debate--something I can't find easily on radio, TV or newspapers. I side with "4more" in seeing greater dangers in Liberalism (or Progressivism), but remembering that all Republicans are not conservative. Also, 81 vs 88 percent: so what? Did it make any real difference in key states like Florida, Ohio? I heard that Obama did not win any state that requires photo ID for voting. To end on a positive note: most US state legislatures are controlled by Republicans; so there's an opportunity to work for change.
Romney is a liberal. look at his past. look at his record. look at his fruit. like I said in my post, mormonism aside, he is a liberal running on the republican ticket saying a bunch of things he doesnt believe just to tickle the ears of conservatives and evangelicals. with respect, I totally disagree with the premis that by not voting for somebody that I totally disagree with(look at his fruit) and do not trust, I am responsible. that is hogwash. that is what has gotten us to where we are today.
where we are today is actually just a symptom of the true problem. Sinful Man.
Nah, they only need the tax revenue that I used to generate. I do miss the States sometimes, and it's not all sunshine and rainbows in the UAE, but I thank God that I am blessed with a good job to pay all my American bills.
You can 'party' all you want. What the US needs is a godly leader. (What we deserve is another matter.) None emerged this round. Prayerfully they will in sixteen.
Angela Wittman wrote: 81% of the evangelical vote for Romney is still way too much, in my opinion. As long as evangelicals continue to support moderate anti-Christ candidates, this is exactly what the GOP leadership will continue to foist upon us. Time for a new party... How about the Christian Liberty Party?
81% of the evangelical vote for Romney is still way too much, in my opinion. As long as evangelicals continue to support moderate anti-Christ candidates, this is exactly what the GOP leadership will continue to foist upon us. Time for a new party... How about the Christian Liberty Party?
Rufus wrote: As to what is most dangerous, I don't believe folks appreciate the historical danger of Mormonism. Research the Mormon Wars, research ...
Reality today is that liberalism is destroying authority, church, morals, truth and marriage in society. Looking across at the UK and Europe, Liberalism is destroying justice, education and freedom of speech and religion. Underestimating Liberalism would be like ignoring the antichrist.
Mormons didn't get anywhere near as powerful as this since their inception. In fact I would say that the cult of Roman Catholcism has been and still is more dangerous to society.
And that is before we start on Obama's socialist ideologies and their influences upon society.
You are framing this as though it was either vote for a liberal(Obama) or vote for a cult member(Romney). Whereas the reality is if we had got Romney we would have got both a liberal AND a cult member.
As to what is most dangerous, I don't believe folks appreciate the historical danger of Mormonism. Research the Mormon Wars, research the death of Joseph Smith, research the blood atonement and blood oaths of Mormonism. I suspect we've been lulled into thinking Mormonism is the two well dressed young men on bicycles, rather than considering the dark history and dark doctrines it has held and holds to.
I'm not looking forward to the next four years as an American. I have nothing to fear as a Christian. Did we as a nation choose unwisely? I believe so. Do I blame evangelicals for not voting for a Mormon? Yes, with a big BUT--that but being that I can understand not wanting to vote for a cult member. I believe that we share a lot of the same values with the Mormons.
I consider myself independent conservative. On the national scale that means that I have always voted Republican.If the Republicans seek the middle ground and make compromises on issues such as abortion and same sex marriage, then I for one will embrace third party or abstinence. I'll never vote for the Democrats because of their pro-death stance on abortion and I would drop the Republicans in a second if they make the same platform stance for the party.
Finally, I'm going to limit my comments on Obama related articles to a simple--'hope you're happy' or 'I told you so' from now on. It's going to be a looong four years if we bitterly examine every clownish thing Obama does. We all need to move on. It'll be at least two years before we can do anything at all about the situation. I do hope that things change for the better when that time comes, but we can do good things on our own no matter what happens in D.C.
18
There are a total of 37 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
